On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:41 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> You shouldn't introduce new stuff inside url(), everything from the u
>> to the close parenthesis is *one token*, it'll be a nightmare to
>> implement (it already is; it should never have been specified that
>> way
>> in the first place).
>
> Agreed. sprite() is much preferable to extending url().
>
>> How about background-image: <url> <x> <y> <width> <height> ;
>
> No. a) That'd create parsing ambiguities in the background shorthand
> and
> b) It doesn't allow use of sprites for other things like list-
> style-image.
In that case (responding to both bits above), the sprite()
functionality should probably be defined as _overriding_ any url()
values that might be set, or it might get really convoluted. Doing so
would also mean good backwards compatibility, e.g.:
background-image: url(foo.png);
background-image: sprite(my_sprite.png, 10px, 20px, 10px, 11px);
Browsers that support the sprite() value would use the sprite image
for the background instead of the url()-specified one. It'd be similar
to rgb() and rgba().
- Faruk